(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:26 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:59 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Thanks. Shere is very much like Bearcats1 and his comments are sometimes mistaken for being serious when they are solely for humor and not harm. Not a big deal now because the 72 hour sit-out period should be expired by now.

And he would have come out clean UNTIL he started rep bombing people.

Yeah, that campaign was both futile and pointless.

Because that wont get you in trouble...

Yes, it can; gts banned him and others for doing it.

I was being sarcastic lol.

(01-10-2017 07:52 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 07:27 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:29 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:26 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  And he would have come out clean UNTIL he started rep bombing people.

Yeah, that campaign was both futile and pointless.

Because that wont get you in trouble...

Yes, it can; gts banned him and others for doing it.

I was being sarcastic lol.

oh...lol

(01-08-2017 04:04 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:58 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Does GTS own the board or something?

I guess he got called out for something about mods, cried and banned the people that called him out.

I dont really understand whats going on either.

I also dont really care.

As a matter of fact, he does.

Like, actually does

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

LOL. Best Answer.

(01-10-2017 03:20 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:59 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 12:34 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 09:35 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  It looks like shere was perma banned...

He was given a 72 hour ban.

Thanks. Shere is very much like Bearcats1 and his comments are sometimes mistaken for being serious when they are solely for humor and not harm. Not a big deal now because the 72 hour sit-out period should be expired by now.

And he would have come out clean UNTIL he started rep bombing people.

If only he had mentioned that his mother has the same name as yours.

(01-11-2017 12:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:04 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:58 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Does GTS own the board or something?

I guess he got called out for something about mods, cried and banned the people that called him out.

I dont really understand whats going on either.

I also dont really care.

As a matter of fact, he does.

Like, actually does

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

LOL. Best Answer.

(01-11-2017 12:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:04 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:58 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Does GTS own the board or something?

I guess he got called out for something about mods, cried and banned the people that called him out.

I dont really understand whats going on either.

I also dont really care.

As a matter of fact, he does.

Like, actually does

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

LOL. Best Answer.

I mean its not like he has an admin tag next to his name or anything...

(01-11-2017 03:32 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:58 AM)panama Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 04:04 PM)Stay Cool Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:58 PM)panicstricken Wrote:  Does GTS own the board or something?

I guess he got called out for something about mods, cried and banned the people that called him out.

I dont really understand whats going on either.

I also dont really care.

As a matter of fact, he does.

Like, actually does

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

LOL. Best Answer.

I mean its not like he has an admin tag next to his name or anything...

There's that sarcasm again...

And the drama continues....what happened last week?

(01-11-2017 11:43 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  And the drama continues....what happened last week?

Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

(01-11-2017 12:01 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 11:43 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  And the drama continues....what happened last week?

Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

(01-11-2017 01:07 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:01 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 11:43 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  And the drama continues....what happened last week?

Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

(01-11-2017 01:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:07 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:01 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 11:43 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  And the drama continues....what happened last week?

Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

(01-11-2017 01:15 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:07 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:01 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 11:43 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  And the drama continues....what happened last week?

Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

(01-11-2017 01:24 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:15 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:07 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 12:01 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Galactic Civil War.

I think Phil Lacio might be the first in the attack of the clones.

This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

Even if we give you the benefit of doubt on that one, you still thought it was impossible to score just one point or was that just part of your "sarcasm" act now as well?

(01-11-2017 01:36 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:24 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:15 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:07 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  This coming from the guy who mistook an obvious 3-1 OOC record prediction for an impossible football game score prediction and then tried to backpedal and call it "sarcasm" when it clearly wasn't.

It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

Even if we give you the benefit of doubt on that one, you still thought it was impossible to score just one point or was that just part of your "sarcasm" act now as well?

The whole thing was sarcasm dude. Not to be taken seriously.

(01-11-2017 01:44 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:36 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:24 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:15 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:10 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  It actually was. Honestly. I was just trying to be funny.

No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

Even if we give you the benefit of doubt on that one, you still thought it was impossible to score just one point or was that just part of your "sarcasm" act now as well?

The whole thing was sarcasm dude. Not to be taken seriously.

I find your claim of genuine causticity tenuous at best. I am well versed in figures of speech and one needs to recollect that one of the key aspects in sarcasm involves sound, such as tonality, inflection in speech, etc.

"The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections."

(01-11-2017 01:54 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:44 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:36 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:24 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:15 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  No one else thought that and you even called the guy an idiot even though you mistakenly thought he was implying that a team could score one point; something you said is impossible and I proved otherwise.


You were wrong on both points.

Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

Even if we give you the benefit of doubt on that one, you still thought it was impossible to score just one point or was that just part of your "sarcasm" act now as well?

The whole thing was sarcasm dude. Not to be taken seriously.

I find your claim of genuine causticity tenuous at best. I am well versed in figures of speech and one needs to recollect that key aspects in true sarcasm involve speech such as tonality, inflection in speech, etc.

"The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections."

My apologies. I debated whether or not to include a /s and thought people would be intelligent enough to spot jest. Next time, I'll err on the side of caution.

(01-11-2017 01:56 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:54 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:44 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:36 PM)Phil Lacio Wrote:  

(01-11-2017 01:24 PM)invisiblehand Wrote:  Hey man, I was on your side the last couple days, no need to joust with me. That comment that I made was sarcastic. Hence the: at the end. I was well aware that the entire thread was about OOC schedules. The structure of his sentence just looked funny enough to me that I thought I'd have some fun.

Even if we give you the benefit of doubt on that one, you still thought it was impossible to score just one point or was that just part of your "sarcasm" act now as well?

The whole thing was sarcasm dude. Not to be taken seriously.

I find your claim of genuine causticity tenuous at best. I am well versed in figures of speech and one needs to recollect that key aspects in true sarcasm involve speech such as tonality, inflection in speech, etc.

"The distinctive quality of sarcasm is present in the spoken word and manifested chiefly by vocal inflections."

My apologies. I debated whether or not to include a /s and thought people would be intelligent enough to spot jest. Next time, I'll err on the side of caution.

The problem is no one else believed your ingenuous and after the fact claim of the "sarcasm defense;" you need to take lessons from Westhoff, who is intelligent enough to use the mechanism of sarcasm properly, effectively and most importantly, genuinely.